For example, UK doctors in clinical practice who have made a clinical error are now encouraged to declare this to their patients at

the earliest opportunity and to make it clear what they intend to do to make amends. Galunisertib clinical trial Perhaps we need to think about ways in which we could include such an approach in our guidance documents for researchers? In a move for greater transparency, Canadian researchers receiving public research funding must waive their right of privacy in cases of research misconduct. This might complement a move by employers to require all new research staff to make a declaration on appointment that they have no active investigations of alleged research misconduct in progress; they might also be expected to disclose whether there had been any allegations of misconduct in the past and their outcome. There has also been a recent www.selleckchem.com/products/azd9291.html call for the research community to be more sympathetic to younger researchers who, because of funding pressures for example, are allured to committing research misconduct. Brian Deer has spoken up in support of the British researcher Professor Peter Francis working in the USA, who fabricated

a pilot study in a grant application.[27] Deer is critical of the funding agency on the basis that “funders want the answer before they are willing to pay to ask the question”! Peter Francis has been allowed to continue to work as an investigator but under supervision for a period of 2 years. For the future, it will be important to collect and collate cases of research misconduct both nationally and internationally. This should be an important component of the assessment of any interventions to enhance the RCR, and to monitor progress of measures aimed at discouraging, detecting, and dealing with the research misconduct. This has proven to be difficult, except when an agency representing research 上海皓元 integrity is nationally recognized, such as the ORI in the USA, and has authority to request that research institutions under its aegis should make annual returns on the cases

that they have dealt with during the period. Nonetheless, this is a goal that we should strive to achieve in the future, and one that perhaps needs high-level governmental support and international collaboration to bring to fruition. This will go some way to provide data on the scope and scale of research misconduct globally, and support the evaluation of new interventions to reduce misconduct. There is also a need for there to be better communication between research institutions and in sharing their experiences of research misconduct. There appear to be major disincentives for institutions to place their reports on research misconduct cases into the public domain. In some cases, compromise agreements have constrained both the employer and the employee to make available a full declaration of what went wrong to the wider research community.